Ezekiel 48

13-21. Borders of the Land as Divided.

13,14. The uniform law of Messianic prophecy is to promise the future Canaan not to Judah alone, but to the Twelve Tribes—to Ephraim and the lost Ten Tribes as truly as to Judah and Benjamin, the two tribes which so long constituted the southern kingdom. It would seem that the Spirit of inspiration overlooked the fact of the revolt under Jeroboam; started at a point much farther back, even with the promise made to the patriarchs and specially renewed to David, and built upon that basis the whole structure of their glorious future. We may notice this remarkable feature of Messianic prophecy in both Jeremiah (chaps. 3: 12, 18; 23: 2, 6-8; 31: 1, 9, 23, 33) and in Ezekiel (chaps. 36: 1, 8, 12, 32, 37; 37: 11, 12, 28; 39: 25). H. C.

15. The borders of the land follow closely Num. 34. In Numbers the borders begin from the south, as the people came up from Egypt; in Ezekiel, from the north, as they might return from Babylon. The occupation is ideal, but is grounded, as usual, on an actual state of things. B. C.

18. Side. The word “side” is very ancient (Amos 3: 12). Its occurrences elsewhere are singular: Exodus, fifteen times; Leviticus, six; Numbers, six; Joshua, six; Jeremiah, four, and Ezekiel, forty-seven times. No one can read the north, south, east and west in Ezekiel (chap. 47) without feeling that he is copying Exodus and Numbers.

19. What is believed to be an insurmountable objection to the reality of the legislation becomes an unanswerable proof of its antiquity. Ezekiel speaks twice of the “side of the south southward,” or, “the side of the Negeb southward.” There was no call on him to add southward after Negeb. He was in Babylon, far to the north of Judah and its dry steppe, at the time of drawing up that sketch. Only one reason can be given for his unnecessary plainness of speech. He was echoing or copying the words which were used in describing the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness. Nowhere but in Ezekiel’s writings and in the Pentateuch do these strange words, “The side of the south southward,” occur. One author clearly borrowed the phrase from another. If the Pentateuch was the book in which it first occurred, the borrowing of it by Ezekiel is easily understood. But if, as several writers think, Ezekiel used the phrase first, then the addition of southward to south becomes a puzzle of greatest difficulty. He had no reason for so doing. He was uselessly repeating the same idea in other words. He was committing a fault of style which laid him open to censure. But there was no fault and no censure, if he was echoing, as he unquestionably was, the words of an ancient and much-esteemed author.

But the prophet gives a curious and convincing proof of his indebtedness to the Pentateuch. “The south side southward” was an archaic phrase, which a reader and imitator of ancient books was entitled to borrow. “The east side toward the sun rising,” was another found in Exodus (27: 13), Numbers (2: 3; 34: 15), and Joshua (19: 12). Ezekiel altered it into “the east side eastward,” by repeating the word for east. The change of word does not indicate originality. But he rounded off the four cardinal points in the same way, and he stands alone in so doing. He spoke of “the north northward” (Ezek. 47: 17), and of “the west westward” (Ezek. 45: 7). He was imitating an old book; he was not borrowing from it. Beyond doubt Ezekiel’s imitations and borrowings in this matter show the homage paid by him to the same Pentateuch which we now study. Sime.

22,23. Inasmuch as enlargement by the accession of Gentiles proselyted to the Jewish faith was a cherished feature of the ancient economy and afforded a choice symbol of the great and glorious ingathering of the Gentiles in the Christian age, it was every way fitting that special provision should be made here for the location and naturalization of strangers who might choose to cast in their lot with Israel. Here it stands. H. C.

Chap. 48. The distribution of the Holy Land in detail. The order of the original occupation by the tribes under Joshua is partly, but only partly followed. It is a new order of things; and its ideal character is evinced, as elsewhere, by exact and equal measurements. From north to south seven tribes succeed each other: Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, Judah, each occupying the full breadth of the land from east to west. Then comes a portion, separated as an offering to the Lord, subdivided into a northern portion for the Levites, a central portion for the priests and the temple, a southern portion for the city and those who serve it. These three form a square, which does not occupy the whole breadth of the land, but is flanked on either side, east and west, by portions assigned to the prince. Then follow, south of the city, five portions for the five remaining tribes—Benjamin, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, and Gad—similar to those assigned to the seven. Thus the Levites, the temple, and city, are guarded by Judah and Benjamin, the two tribes who had throughout preserved their allegiance to the true sovereignty of Jehovah, and thus the plan expresses the presence of Jehovah among His people, summed up in the name of the city, with which Ezekiel’s prophecy closes, “The Lord is there.” B. C.

This vision closes legitimately with a definite geographical location of the several tribes (verses 1-7, 23-28); a more expanded description of the sacred reserve (verses 8-22) resumed from chap. 45:1-7; and a description of the gates of the great city (verses 29-35).

1-7. The best view of this assignment of the tribes will be obtained from the diagram, page 188. It will be seen there at a glance that the territory of each tribe extended entirely across the country from west to east, and of equal width. The actual sinuosities and irregularities of the western border, and of the eastern also, are overlooked, as well as the narrowing of the real Palestine from its greatest width at its southern extremity to its least at the northern. The location of the tribes differs in other respects widely from that made by Joshua. The latter was every way irregular; the former is a model of perfect mathematical regularity. Doubtless the consideration of order ruled in this arrangement. Everything about it indicates that it was and is only ideal—a thing of vision only.

8-22. This is the sacred reserve, “the holy oblation,” first brought to view (chap. 45:1-7); but here taken up again, repeated and somewhat expanded. The diagram (page 188) will give the best view of these apportionments. The purpose of this reserve is obviously to carry out the great idea of the ancient economy in its extreme form—seclusion of the holy from the profane and earthly—the broadest possible distinction between things sacred and things common everywhere kept up in order to cultivate a critical habit of moral discrimination between holiness and sin, and to impress a sense of the obligation of moral purity. This moral discipline is above all price in value. But we should quite mistake the genius of the Gospel dispensation if we were to assume that God proposes to develop its future and higher stages by returning to the modes and forms of Judaism. No; his thought is rather to carry the culture obtained by the aid of that ancient régime out into the world-wide fields of human society, and train men to “live holily, justly and unblamably in this present world;” not to shut themselves out of it for the sake of the holiness of the cloister. We may fitly notice that the Lord makes ample provision for the support of His Levite servants as well as for the priests and for those who serve in the city, taken from all the tribes of Israel. The ministers who labor and serve under this new régime are thoughtfully provided for, as if specially worthy of their hire. The implication is that only with such provision can they be expected to hold on, true to their work, kept above the torturing power of poverty to seduce them from their sacred functions.

30-35. This great city, a model of method and order—each tribe represented in its twelve gates—is imitated by the r velator John in his city of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:10-21). John, however, was farther advanced in the light of the new dispensation, for in his city is “no temple,” while here the temple is the central fact. But the glory of the whole scene is brought out here in the significant name of the city which was to stand from that day onward—“Jehovah Shammah;” The Lord is there! It is the place of Jehovah’s dwelling in the midst of His people. Everything is shaped according to Mosaic ideas, for the perpetual dwelling of Jehovah among His people. The entire arrangements, including the sacred reserve, its special localities for the Levites, for the priests, for the more menial servants of the sanctuary; for the prince also and for all the tribes—all, every several thing, provides for the great central fact, and adjusts itself around that living truth—Jehovah dwelling forever, and forever manifesting Himself among His chosen; He their God, and they His people. Prophetically, it looks down into the Christian age to its great central truth—the Lord by His Divine Spirit making His abode through all ages in the hearts of His children. “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” H. C.

35. The Lord is there. It is frequently said in the sacred writings that a person or a thing shall be called by a certain name, where it is predicted that the person or thing shall be endowed with those qualities which the name imports. When Isaiah predicts the coming of the Messiah, he says that “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,” because He was to possess the qualities which would serve as a foundation to these titles. In this sense Jerusalem is called in the Psalms the “city of God, the city of the Great King;” and in Isaiah, “the city of Righteousness, the faithful city;” and in this passage, “The Lord is there.” Calmet.—In this new Jerusalem, the Church of Christ, God shall dwell in a more glorious manner, and make it the place of His perpetual residence; so that every part of that city shall be honored with evident tokens of the Divine presence; and every member of it being dedicated to God’s service, and becoming an habitation of God through His Spirit, shall have some degree of the holiness of the temple where God had placed His name. This is in a lower degree fulfilled in all Christians, who are called “the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:16), and “an habitation of God through the Spirit” (Eph. 2:22). W. Lowth.

The prophecy of Ezekiel, while it is “the last expiring cry of the Jewish monarchy,” is, like the fabled cry of the dying swan, a noble song as well as a cry. From his captivity, and from the midst of visions of his country’s desolations, it was given him to gaze upon and to paint for his hearers the glorious future that was hovering over the true Israel of God. That Israel is to be folded in safety by a true Shepherd; is to be, spiritually, as a man in robust and vigorous health, for “a new heart and a new spirit” shall be given; is to be, in the completeness of its revival, “an exceeding great army,” quickened to life by mystic breath “from the four winds,” and is to go forth to conquer in a terrific struggle with the “Gog and Magog” of heathenism; is to become a vast and perfect “temple;” is to be blessed and to bless others by a “river” of healing waters. But its highest glory is revealed in the last two words of the book, for it is to be as a country, the name of whose city is Jehovah Shammah, “the Lord is there.” U. R. Thomas.

The name given to this city; from that day, when it shall be new erected according to this model, the name of it shall be not as before, Jerusalem—the vision of peace—but, which is the original of that and more than equivalent to it, Jehovah Shammah—the Lord is there. This intimated: 1. That the captives, after their return, should have manifest tokens of God’s presence with them and His residence among them, both in His ordinances and in His providences. 2. That the Gospel Church should likewise have the presence of God in it, though not in the Shekinah, as of old, yet in a token of it no less sure, that of His Spirit. Where the Gospel is faithfully preached, Gospel ordinances duly administered, and God worshipped in the name of Jesus Christ only, it may truly be said, The Lord is there; for faithful is He that has said it, and He will be as good as His word. Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. The Lord is there in His Church, to rule and govern it, to protect and defend it, and graciously to accept and own His sincere worshippers, and to be nigh unto them in all that they call upon Him for. 3. That the glory and happiness of heaven should consist chiefly in this—that the Lord is there. John’s representation of that blessed state does indeed far exceed this in many respects. That is all gold and pearls and precious stones; it is much larger than this and much brighter, for it needs not the light of the sun. But in making the presence of God the principal matter of its bliss they both agree. There the happiness of the glorified saints is made to be that God Himself shall be with them (Rev. 21:3); that He who sits on the throne shall dwell among them (Rev. 7:15). And here it is made to crown the bliss of this holy city, that the Lord is there. Let us therefore give all diligence to make sure to ourselves a place in that city, that we may be forever with the Lord. H.

Ezekiel’s whole sketch is ideal. It was not literally obeyed in a single particular. The temple was not rebuilt by his directions. The ceremonial was not restored as he prescribed. The land was not divided agreeably to his injunctions. This non-compliance on the part of those who honored him as a prophet of the Lord shows that they understood his words not as commands which they were to obey, but as an idealized picture of the future which the Lord would bring to pass. It was no more designed to guide in the work of reconstruction than Jer. 31:38-40 was to be followed in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, or than Zech. 2:4 enjoined their demolition. The departures from Levitical law above referred to may have been designed, on the one hand, to intimate that the ceremonial was not a finality and forever unalterable; and, on the other hand, like plain impossibilities, that are also incorporated in his scheme to suggest that they were not intended to be obeyed, so long, at least, as the Mosaic law held sway. There never could be any hesitation about the proper answer to the question whether their obedience was due to the vision of Ezekiel or to the statutes of Moses.

The latter was law; the former was a picture of the future, which in many respects may have been perplexing, but it was not for the guidance of their conduct. W. H. Green.

I plead for the figurative interpretation and against the literal, and draw my arguments: (1) From the New Testament; (2) from the Old, and especially from these prophecies themselves in their relation to the writer and his first readers; (3) from the nature of the case—especially as creating an intensely strong probability against the literal and in favor of the figurative interpretation.

1. The literal system of interpretation must be rejected because it is absolutely precluded and forbidden by the New Testament. The entire spirit and genius of the Gospel dispensation as unfolded by Christ and His inspired apostles is utterly, squarely, fatally against it. For the literal system must hold that, according to this vision, Judaism will yet be fully restored—restored with more than all its ancient surroundings, and in more than its ancient fulness. But, according to the New Testament, Judaism is dead. It had done its great work when Jesus died as the Lamb of God, and thenceforth it ceased to exist under Divine authority. In the age of the Epistle to the Hebrews it had already “decayed, waxed old, and was ready to vanish away.” Paul declared repeatedly and in many various forms that Christ had “broken down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles” by setting aside whatever was peculiar to the Jew; that he “had abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” etc. (Eph. 2: 14, 15); that he had “blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us” (Gentiles), “which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross” (Col. 2: 14). This was the end of the Mosaic system.

2. The evidence from the Old Testament—i.e., from these prophecies themselves, considered in view of the circumstances of their authors and first readers, may be presented with brevity here. In a word, then, these prophets were Jews, of Jewish education, with only Jewish conceptions of the kingdom of God, and with only Jewish terms, phrases, figures and symbols for expressing these conceptions. The same is true of their first readers, to whom of necessity they must adapt their writings. If any should suggest here that the Lord Himself is the speaker and revealer, still the case remains the same; for the Lord speaks to Jews, whether prophets or people, and only in Jewish language and figures. Hence the future kingdom of Christ must be revealed to the prophets and to the Jewish people in words and symbols drawn from the existing economy. This necessity is absolute, if the Lord aimed to reveal anything—if He aimed to speak so as to be understood. This principle is introduced here, not precisely to prove that these prophecies reveal Gospel blessings, but to account for their phraseology and their symbols. The proof that they teach the gloriously converting power of the Gospel and of the Spirit of God in the latter days comes from the facts: (1) that they refer to Gospel times; (2) that they must therefore be construed of Gospel blessings, and not of Mosaic forms and ritualities; (3) that the nature and magnitude of these symbols demand a most magnificent fulfilment, and can be satisfied with nothing less.

3. In the nature of the case the literal system is for every reason intensely improbable. Thus: That the Twelve Tribes should appear again; produce their unbroken and distinct genealogies; prove their identity, and file into their places in the allotment of tribes as given in Ezek. 48, is violently improbable. That the natural boundaries of Palestine should be miraculously changed so as to make it a perfect rectangle; that the great river from the sanctuary should flow, with a growth so unprecedented, into the Dead Sea, and make its waters salubrious, fill them with fish, etc., all in the literal sense, is very improbable. That the better times of the Gospel age, its one period of most perfect beauty, purity and glory, should be brought about by receding from the genius of New Testament Christianity to the genius of Judaism, is pre-eminently improbable. That the Lord should subject His Gentile churches to the same terrible contest with Judaism which cost so much martyr-blood in the first and second centuries is improbable. That He should subject the Jews themselves to those temptations to bigotry, exclusiveness, and uncharitableness, which in the first Christian age often proved too stubborn for even the grace of the Gospel, is improbable. That He should expose them to the power of the old national spirit of reliance upon ritual forms and ceremonies, or to the national pride in which they accounted themselves the only favored people of God, is utterly improbable. And finally, that the Lord should give His Church in the future age a system in which the spirit of love, purity and peace is lost in the letter of forms and ceremonies; in which (as e.g. in Ezek. 47:1-12) you have, instead of the unexampled glory and power of the Divine Spirit, only a beautiful river and plenty of good fish, and fruit-trees in abundance for sensual delights—in short, that God should lead the Church and the world backward from a spiritual Gospel to a sensual paradise, is utterly improbable and even incredible. For one, I rejoice that there is no trustworthy evidence to sustain the literal interpretation, and that the figurative view is amply supported by evidence, unfolding glorious truth in harmony with the whole tenor of Old Testament prophecy and of New Testament interpretation of it, and revealing a sublimely grand and auspicious future for the kingdom of our Divine Redeemer. H. C.

DANIEL comes first to view, a Jewish youth of the royal family, taken captive to Babylon in the first deportation of captives, in the third year of Jehoiakim, B.C. 606 or 607; and is soon after selected with others for his wisdom, efficiency and agreeable person, to be trained in the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans, for service under the king. This custom of taking young men of the finest parts from a captive or subject race to fill responsible positions about the king has prevailed in many despotic governments, and is essentially the usage of the Turkish empire to this day. It finds its motives: (1) In the fact that such monarchs need men about them of the very first abilities; (2) in the difficulty they would experience in getting young men of such ability from among their own people who might not, by virtue of their social position or connections, become dangerous to the throne. We are then to think of Daniel as educated thoroughly in the language, literature and general culture of the Chaldeans (this term being used here for the learned, sacerdotal and scientific class, and not for the mass of the people), but yet as adhering with noble firmness to the religious faith of his fathers. In this position he developed extraordinary capacities in the line of wisdom, fidelity and efficiency, and consequently rose to the rank of prime minister under the Chaldean sovereigns, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, and remarkably attained and held an equally exalted position in the succeeding dynasty, the Medo-Persian, under Darius the Median and Cyrus.

Daniel must have lived and retained his vigor to a great age. The period during which he appears before us in this book, from the beginning of the Captivity to the very end of it, was seventy years; and we may reasonably suppose him from sixteen to twenty years of age at the beginning of this period, and of course almost ninety at its close. Yet his heart appears full of earnest life and power in his memorable prayer for his people, given us in chap. 9, just on the eve of the restoration. H. C.

From tender youth to extreme age, for more than seventy years, the prophet lived at the Babylonian and Medo-Persian court (1:1, 6, 21; 10:1). But more than this, he took part in the government of the State, in which he occupied a high official position (2:48; 5:29; 6:29; 8:27). He was thus enabled to gain an insight and knowledge of the organization of political affairs in the kingdoms of the world, and fitted to be the recipient of what, perhaps, I may be permitted to call his political revelations. But he has likewise obtained the spiritual point of view. The experiences which Daniel made through the deep humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar, through Belshazzar’s downfall, the rapid efflorescence, decay, and vanishing of the Babylonian monarchy, the miraculous deliverance of himself and his friends (chaps. 3-6), all these events made on him a profound impression—that the powers of the world are transitory and the glory of the kingdom of God eternal. Auberlen.

The book simply outlines the personal fortunes of a man whose life spans the entire period of the Babylonian Captivity, and tells us what outlook into the future was given to him of the world’s political history. The visions of Daniel constitute a philosophy of history valuable as the contribution of a man whose abilities secured for him high official station in the government of his conquerors. Apart from any claim of inspiration, Daniel’s studies and conclusions are worthy of serious attention, when you consider the nobility of his character and the length of his public life. He never preaches, and therein he differs from the prophet whose special mission is that of public warning, exhortation and encouragement. Daniel is simply a great and gifted layman, whom the splendors of Babylon cannot tempt from the religion of his fathers, and in whose visions we trace his passionate attachment to and unshaken faith in the future of his despised and captive people. No burdens of State could prevent him from praying three times each day, with eyes fixed, through open windows, upon Jerusalem. He does nothing from policy, everything from principle. There is an equally remarkable completeness in his character. There are in it no violent contrasts, no lapses over which we must throw the mantle of charity. He is a man of the finest and firmest courage. He tells Nebuchadnezzar the truth; he is fearless before Belshazzar; he prays according to his habit, without a thought of the lion’s den. He is always contented, whether filling a responsible post or remanded to obscurity. He bides his time. And he is full of charity. He cherishes no animosities. He does not turn upon his persecutors. He could have had no great love for the priestly class; but his first public appearance is on their behalf, because they had been condemned to death unless they could reproduce the king’s forgotten dream. It is a noble figure that stands out against the dark background of general vanity, revelry and cruelty; and is a notable instance of the supremacy of righteousness over brute force. It cannot be doubted that Daniel’s quiet influence at court must have done much to soften the rigors of the Captivity, and it goes far toward explaining the favorable disposition of Cyrus and the facilities which were gladly accorded to Zerubbabel by Cyrus, and to Nehemiah by Darius. As Joseph prepared the way for his father’s household, so Daniel prepared the way for the captives of Judah. He had been eighteen years in Babylon when the captives came pouring in from the wasted city, and he was held in high esteem. They must have been considerately treated for his sake; and his name must have speedily become a household word among them. It was not a misplaced revenge. He has not suffered by a lapse of 2400 years; and we still summon men to the highest level of character when we say to them, “Dare be like Daniel.” Behrends.

We have in Daniel a man of intense religious feeling and a true patriot, and one possessed also of great ability and a powerful mind, upon which numerous and weighty influences were brought to bear. Can we wonder if he viewed the world with a different eye from that of the exiled priest Ezekiel, living in penury among the poor Jewish colonists planted on the river Chebar? or from that of Jeremiah, struggling against all the evil influences which were daily dragging the feeble Zedekiah and the decaying people of Jerusalem down to ruin? or even from that of Isaiah, whose rapt vision, spurning this poor earth, soared aloft to the spiritual glories of Messiah’s reign, and sang how the sucker, springing up from Jesse’s cut-down lineage, and growing as a root in a dry ground, should by its wounds bring to the world healing, and by its death purchase for mankind life? But each of these had his own office and his special message; and Daniel’s office was to show that the Christian religion was not to be an enlarged Judaism, but a Judaism fulfilled and made free. Instead of a church for the Jews, there was to be a church for all mankind. The thought present to his mind is that of the one God establishing one kingdom and one religion on earth, and he sees these world-kingdoms preparing the way for it, but themselves coming to naught as it grows and covers all the world. We know how he loved his nation, and how, even in extreme old age, he still prayed with his face toward Jerusalem; but he places out of sight the work of his country and of his church, and sees only the world’s history, and the share which it has in preparing for the universal dominion of God. R. P. S.

Daniel’s conduct was the same throughout, always in harmony with itself. Attentive to his duty to God, he was equally so in his duty to man. Faithful to his God, he is equally faithful to his king. His morality is no less conspicuous than his religion. He is fervent in spirit, but no less diligent in business. Regular and earnest in his closet, he is equally assiduous in his office. Studious in his Bible, as a man of business he is well acquainted with his books. His enemies can find no fault in him, and no ground of accusation with the king, but in the matter of his religion. He is favored with revelations from heaven and the visits of angels; yet no sooner are his visions withdrawn and his usual state of health recovered than he returns to do “the king’s business.” He is endowed, even while yet young, with a wisdom and understanding superior to that of all the wise men of Babylon, yet disclaims all merit and wisdom of his own as being greater than those of other men. He is tender and gentle, while bold and uncompromising in professing the truth and reproving sin. He is distressed as being the bearer of evil tidings to Nebuchadnezzar, yet fearlessly declares to the hardened Belshazzar both his sin and his doom. Anon.

It was the love of God that presented him with a clearer landscape of the Gospel than any other prophet ever had; he was the beloved prophet under the Old Dispensation, as John was the beloved disciple under the New; and, both being animated by the same Divine love, there was a wonderful harmony between them; both engaged young in the service of God, and consecrated their lives by an early piety; and both lived to a great and equal age—to about an hundred years. Both had the like intimacy with God, the like admittance into the most adorable mysteries, and the like abundance of heavenly visions. Both had the like lofty flights and ecstatic revelations. Bp. Ken.

The Book of Daniel is almost as much historical as prophetic. In the Hebrew canon its place is between Esther and Ezra, two books, both of which are histories. One entire half of it (chaps. 1–6) is a narrative of events, and is as capable of receiving historical illustration as any other portion of the sacred volume. Daniel, moreover, supplies a gap in the biblical history which is not otherwise filled up by any sacred writer. He is the historian of the Captivity, the writer who alone furnishes any series of events for that dark and dismal period. His narrative may be said, in a general way, to intervene between Kings and Chronicles on the one hand and Ezra on the other, or (more strictly) to fill out the sketch which the author of Chronicles gives in a single verse of his last chapter: “And them that had escaped from the sword carried he” (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) “away to Babylon, where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia” (2 Chron. 36: 20). We learn from Daniel particulars of this servitude.

The main events related in Daniel are the long and glorious reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the great king of Babylon, who both commenced and completed the captivity of the Jews; his elevation of Daniel to a position of high authority in his kingdom; his treatment of the “three children,” Ananias, Azarias, and Misael; his dreams, his terrible illness and recovery; the impiety and punishment of Belshazzar; the capture of Babylon; the accession of “Darius the Mede,” and his treatment of Daniel; and the accession, a year or two later, of “Cyrus the Persian.” These events, it will be observed, are partly of a public, partly of a private character. The names and reigns of kings, their acts and fate, the order of their succession and general character of their government, the transfer of empire from one race or nation to another, and the like, are of the former kind; the particular treatment of individuals among their subjects is of the latter. It is, of course, only of the former class of facts that we can expect illustrations from profane history; and to them, accordingly, the inquiry should be confined.

Daniel opens with some chronological statements which, at first sight, seem self-contradictory. He relates that, in a certain year of the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, went up to Jerusalem and besieged it (1: 1); that, the siege being successful, he carried off from the city certain captives, among whom was Daniel, and delivered him into the care of his chief eunuch, with an injunction that he should educate him for three years, and then bring him into his presence (1: 3–6); that this was done, and the captives were admitted among the “wise men” (1: 18–20); and that after this, in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, they were brought into danger by a decree which commanded that the wise men should be put to death (2: 1–13). We are enabled to reconcile these statements by finding in Berosus that the first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Syria and the commencement of the Jewish captivity took place toward the close of the reign of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar’s father, in B.C. 605, or possibly in B.C. 606; between which time and Nebuchadnezzar’s second year, B.C. 603, there would be room for the three years’ instruction spoken of; more especially as “three years,” according to the Hebrew usage, means no more than one whole year and parts, however small, of two other years. Thus, if Daniel were taken to Babylon in the autumn of B.C. 605 and placed at once under the chief eunuch, he might have been presented to Nebuchadnezzar as educated early in B.C. 603, and before the close of that year have run the risk of destruction and escaped from it. Nebuchadnezzar’s second year would not be out till the Thoth of B.C. 602, according to Babylonian modes of reckoning. The only difficulty that remains, if it be a difficulty, is that Nebuchadnezzar is called “king of Babylon” in Dan. 1: 1 when he was merely crown prince and commander-in-chief on behalf of his father. But this is a prolepsis common to most writers of history. G. R.

The Book of Daniel stands in the Hebrew canon among the Hagiographa or Sacred Writings, which are specially so called in distinction to the Law and the prophets, not as implying any greater degree of sanctity, but as claiming an actual and independent sanctity for them, notwithstanding their position as third in the scale. In that canon the position of Daniel is after Esther and before Ezra. In the Septuagint and Vulgate, as also in Luther’s version, its place is among the four greater prophets, after Ezekiel, which is its natural chronological position, supposing Daniel to have been an historical character and this book a genuine production by him, for though Daniel’s career began earlier than Ezekiel’s, he no doubt long survived him, as he lived to witness the return of his countrymen in consequence of the edict of Cyrus, B.C. 536 (Dan. 1 : 21 ; 10 : 1).

It consists of twelve chapters, which are written partly in Hebrew and partly in that Aramaic dialect commonly called Chaldee, which the Jews seemed to have acquired, and more or less adopted, in the land of their captivity. The first six chapters relate matters of fact of a substantive nature; the last six contain various visions which were vouchsafed to Daniel. The former half is divided into several sections loosely joined together without any formula of transition or even a connecting particle except between the first and second chapters. In fact, they form complete narratives in themselves, but they follow on in natural sequence, so that the former chapters are presupposed in the latter.

Authenticity, Genuineness and Integrity. This book has uniformly been ascribed to Daniel by the combined testimony of the Jewish and Christian Churches. In recent years, however, this judgment has been utterly reversed. As the issues depending upon it are very important, it is desirable to enter into this question at some length. There are three questions involved : (1) The authenticity ; (2) the genuineness ; and (3) the integrity of the book. By its authenticity we mean its trustworthiness as a record of fact ; by its genuineness, that it is rightly ascribed to its supposed author ; and by its integrity, that it is an original whole, and not the casual combination of distinct and independent parts. It is important to point out that the questions of authenticity and genuineness are, to a large extent, interdependent—that is to say, if the book is authentic it can hardly be other than genuine, and if it is genuine we may take it for granted that it is authentic.

If Daniel wrote this book we may well hesitate to question its details ; and if its details are trustworthy, there is no one to whom we are so likely to be indebted for them as to Daniel—to his presiding supervision and care, if not to his personal authorship. It should also be clearly noted that in the historic credibility of the book, or, in other words, its authenticity, is inseparably bound up the due recognition of the miraculous. The stories of the deliverance of Daniel’s companions from the fiery furnace and of himself from the den of lions are such as to baffle all explanation to account for them. We are challenged by the writer on the most definite issue to determine whether they occurred as facts or did not occur. If they occurred as facts, then they are miracles and can be nothing else ; if they did not occur, then the story relating them must be a romance, a fiction, or a myth, and it can be nothing else. These stories, of all others in Scripture, the most resolutely refuse to yield to any process or theory which, accepting them as artistic sketches, with a moral and didactic purpose, nevertheless denies to them the weight of historic reality, and dissipates their substantial worth as actual occurrences.

The Book of Daniel, therefore, offers a crucial test on many points which are directly or implicitly denied in the present day. Nor must we imagine that it is only in the present day that the severity of this test is felt. There never can have been a time when it was really more easy to believe the story of the deliverance from the fiery furnace than it is now, if the imagination truly grappled with it ; but when the truth of Daniel was first impugned, it was rather on the prophetic than the historic ground. Porphyry, who died A.D. 304, wrote fifteen books against the religion of Christ, and the whole of his twelfth book was taken up with an attack on the genuineness of Daniel. He maintained that it was written by a Jew in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and for this reason it seemed to predict truly up to this point, but falsely afterward. The Book of Daniel, then, raises a definite issue on the subject of miracles and prophecy ; if it is genuine it is absolutely impossible to refuse to acknowledge either ; and for this reason it is easy to see that a disposition to reject either may well tend to a prejudgment of the genuineness or authenticity of Daniel, not on the actual merits of the question, but in accordance with preconceived opinions upon miracles and prophecy.

Canonicity. Our business, however, is with the grounds upon which Daniel has been accepted as canonical and believed as an integral part of the Holy Scripture. And these are two-fold—external ; internal.

1. It must be admitted that externally the Book of Daniel comes to us as well authenticated as any other canonical book. First, there is the reference in the first Book of Maccabees, 2 : 59, 60, “Ananias, Azarias and Misael, by believing, were saved out of the flame; Daniel for his innocency was delivered from the mouths of lions.” This is mentioned in conjunction with David and Elias, and it is evidently regarded as of the same character and authority as what is related of them. It is true, of course, that the speech in which it occurs may be an imaginary one of the writer’s, which he has put into the mouth of the dying Mattathias, but at all events we must regard it as one which he might have spoken.

At this time, therefore, the historian saw nothing improbable in Mattathias being acquainted with the history of Daniel, and as we have no history in which these events are recorded but this Book of Daniel, he must have learned them from it, and at any rate proof is afforded that when the Book of Maccabees was written the canonical position of Daniel was secure. Now the first Book of Maccabees was probably written in the last quarter of the second century before Christ—that is to say, about two generations after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It follows, therefore, that if Daniel was a late production, it had managed to work its way into reception on a level with the rest of Scripture in the short space of sixty or seventy years. This is by no means likely, as the first Book of Maccabees itself was not so received, nor is there any reason to believe that any other book of the same period was allowed a place in the canon.

2. Again, this first Book of Maccabees not only presupposes the existence of Daniel, which it does merely as a matter of independent testimony, just as Milton’s allusion to Shakespeare proves that he lived after Shakespeare’s time, but it displays acquaintance also with the Alexandrian version of the book, so that the Semitic original must have been in existence long enough to find a place in an authorized translation like that of the LXX—e.g., in 1 Mac. 1 : 54 we read that “they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar,” meaning, no doubt, the heathen idol, and quoting the remarkable words of Dan. 11 : 31 as they are in the Greek. (Cf. Dan. 9 : 27.) So in 1 Mac. 9 : 40, the words καὶ ἔπεσον τραυματίαι πολλοί are an echo of the Greek of Dan. 11 : 26, καὶ πεσονταὶ τραυματίαι πολλοί, and in 1 Mac. 9 : 27 there is close correspondence with the language of Dan. 12 : 1. It seems, therefore, fairly certain that the writer of the first Book of Maccabees was acquainted with the Greek version of Daniel, which necessitates an earlier existence of the book than the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, even if the Septuagint version itself is not of earlier date than that.

3. The narrative in Josephus (Ant. xi. 8, 5), that when Alexander the Great, in his conquering march, came to Jerusalem, the Book of Daniel was shown to him, and that he took to himself the prophecy in it that a Greek should destroy the Persian empire, and was much pleased therewith, is clear proof that in the opinion of Josephus the book was in existence then, whether or not we accept the story, while it shows that he could have known of no incident or tradition which made its existence then impossible. As a matter of historical fact, however, it is true that Alexander treated the Jews with marked favor, which gives some color of probability to the story of Josephus, and itself must be accounted for by some predisposing cause such as this would have furnished.

4. Lastly, had Daniel first appeared in Maccabean times, as the natural product of them, there would probably have been other books of a like kind, but we have no evidence of any, and therefore this book must stand entirely alone if not genuine; and however appropriate certain portions may be to the requirements of that time, it is hard to see the special bearing of others upon them, and therefore the theory of Maccabean origin, while it affords a plausible motive for some parts, offers no explanation of others which are equally characteristic, any more than it explains why the one part should have been linked so closely with the other, if it was not a whole from the beginning.

It is important to estimate these positive and substantive facts at their true value, because they seem to furnish definite material, which it is alike impossible to set aside and to reconcile with any theory of the late origin of Daniel. However we are to deal with the miraculous and prophetic elements of the book, it is at all events not fair to minimize the value of these facts in order to depreciate the ostensible importance of the miracles and prophecies contained in it. If we are honest and earnest students, therefore, we cannot ignore the fact that the external testimony, direct and indirect, to the existence of Daniel at a time antecedent to the age of Antiochus Epiphanes is very strong. It would certainly be held to be conclusive in the absence of any motives for setting it aside.

5. Another point deserves to be more carefully noted than it seems commonly to have been. We have in the prophet Ezekiel distinct reference to the existence of the prophet Daniel in his time. In the fourteenth chapter he twice couples him with Noah and Job, as a notable instance of deliverance, and in chap. 28 : 3 he says of Tyre, “Behold thou art wiser than Daniel, there is no secret that they can hide from thee.” Ezekiel and Daniel were contemporaries. It is plain that Ezekiel knew of Daniel as one who had either wrought some great deliverance for others or had been himself the subject of it, and also as of one who was a great revealer of secrets. Now we may not assume that Ezekiel was acquainted with the Book of Daniel, but as these are the only two references we have to Daniel in the Hebrew literature, we must either assume, if the book was late in date, that it was a story based entirely on these two meagre and fragmentary references to the history of Daniel, which were consequently sufficient to supply the foundation and framework of it, or else that more extensive traditions sufficient for supplying it were in existence, and had survived in adequate measure for the space of three centuries and a half till they suggested the remarkable compilation which we now know as the Book of Daniel.

It seems to me that this is a point that is well worthy of note, and we may be absolutely certain that the writer of Daniel in the second century before Christ either fabricated his romance entirely out of the materials supplied by Ezekiel, or else made use of traditions of which there is no trace elsewhere, or else gave the rein to his imagination to create a story in substantial agreement with the brief allusions to Daniel in Ezekiel. I do not believe that any of these courses was probable or possible, nor do I believe that the whole compass of literature supplies any case corresponding to what this would have been. The fact that certain stories, such as that of Bel and the dragon, and of Susanna, became attached to the Book of Daniel, but did not find a place in the Hebrew canon, serves at least to show that there was felt to be an intrinsic difference between them, whether it was that of age or anything else, and neither of these stories can have originated in the way it is assumed that the Book of Daniel arose from a desire to encourage the Jews when suffering under the severities of the Antiochian persecution, though indeed it is useless to speculate as to what may or may not have been the possible origin of any book whose apparent and traditional origin is disputed.

Arguments on the Other Side. The arguments which are advanced against the genuineness of the Book of Daniel are as follows :

The fact that its place in the Hebrew canon is not among the prophets, but in the so-called Sacred Writings, is advanced to show that the book was not known when the division was made which consisted of the writings of the prophets. This may possibly have been made by Ezra or Nehemiah somewhere about 450 B.C., or more than one hundred years after the age of Daniel. In the Septuagint version, however, which was probably made in the third century B.C., Daniel follows Ezekiel as he does in our own version. And it is a very reasonable explanation of the place of Daniel in the Hebrew canon, that he was not officially a prophet with a distinct call, as is recorded in the case of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but only a prophet in virtue of his gifts. His book is regarded rather as an historical treatise, and therefore is classed with those of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther. In like manner, though Daniel was pre-eminently a prophet and acknowledged as a prophet, he is not classed among the prophets in the canon, but is placed in the forefront of the Sacred Writings. It is obvious that these two considerations entirely neutralize any impression arising from the position of Daniel in the Hebrew canon, and fully account for it.

A second reason is conceived to exist in the silence of Jesus the son of Sirach, in Eclus. 49, when the worthies of Israel are enumerated. The entire passage extends from chap. 44 to chap. 50. Daniel, however, is not the only name omitted; no mention is made of Esther or of Mordecai, whereas Nehemiah finds his place somewhat inappropriately between Zerubbabel and Enoch. It is manifest that no valid argument can be raised on this circumstance, seeing that the entire catalogue is of a rhetorical character, and the selection made on arbitrary principles. The date of Eclus. is probably about 180-200. If, therefore, Daniel was of the age suggested, and not genuine, this would of course account for the silence of the son of Sirach, though of course it may very well arise from other causes. Clearly, if we are right in assigning the LXX translation to the third century B.C., the place of Daniel in that version is alone conclusive as furnishing positive evidence to his existence in opposition to the negative evidence deduced from the silence of the son of Sirach.

And it must always be remembered that Ezekiel was manifestly acquainted with a Daniel, whether or not the book bearing his name has a right to be received as genuine. Indeed, as I have already stated, the reference made by Ezekiel is altogether inexplicable if the Book of

Daniel is a forgery of the second century B.C. Who was the Daniel to whom Ezekiel refers? and how is it that, being so eminent as he clearly was, we know nothing whatever about him? If he was held worthy of being classed with Noah and Job, how is it that tradition was absolutely silent as to his history for some four centuries, till it suddenly blazed forth in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes with this profusion of supernatural incident and enigmatical prediction?

Thirdly, it is said that there is no mention of Daniel in Haggai, Zechariah or Malachi. But why is it necessary to suppose there should have been, considering the specific character of these writers and the brevity of their writings? There is no mention of Ezekiel in Jeremiah, or of Jeremiah in Ezekiel, though they were contemporary. To all appearance, however, this negative feature is more than neutralized by what is probably a verbal reference to Daniel in Nehemiah. The words of Nehemiah (1:5) are a reproduction of Daniel (9:4), and the peculiar phrase, “great and terrible God,” is used only in Deuteronomy and in this place of Daniel. The position in which Nehemiah found himself was not unlike that of Daniel, and so far calculated to bring to his recollection the words of Daniel. In Neh. 9:32 we see also that Nehemiah has adopted an alteration of De. 7:9, which Daniel has made in 9:4. If, in the former instance, we might question which of the two was the original, there is hardly the same opportunity of doing so here, where we seem to have the result of a longer and wider experience. It is, moreover, at least probable that two of Zechariah’s visions are more or less adapted and borrowed from Daniel (Zech. 1:18-21; 6:1-5), and if this is so, we have quite as much indication of acquaintance with Daniel in the post-Captivity prophets as we can reasonably expect. Indeed, the visions of Zechariah may very well be thought to lean upon those of Ezekiel and Daniel.

It has even been suggested that the frequent asseverations of truth are blinds to conceal a consciousness of falsehood on the part of the writer. This only shows the perversity of the spirit of the objector, just as, in certain chapters of Isaiah, we are asked to believe them not genuine because they do not claim to be his; whereas in chapters like the thirteenth and fourteenth, which do claim to be his, the authority of the superscription is without scruple set aside. Doubtless, had there been no vouchers for truthfulness in Daniel, that would have been advanced as an indication of spuriousness, just as the frequency of them is construed into a tacit admission of forgery. So just and appropriate is our Lord’s remark: “Whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the market-place and crying unto their fellows: We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.” So difficult is it to conceive the circumstances in which the excuse for objection should not arise.

It is to be remembered that, with regard to the Book of Daniel, the question as to its date lies only between the actual date, which we may suppose to be that of the old age of Daniel, or about the middle of the sixth century B.C., and that of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (163 B.C.), a distance of more than three centuries and a half. No other date has ever been suggested; but it is not hard to see that, even conceding the latter date as the true one, there is a distinct prophecy as early as the second chapter, which probably reappears afterward, that renders absolutely futile any such hypothesis, for it is not possible to interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream without perceiving that the rise of the Christian Church as a kingdom that should last forever is definitely promised therein.

Of course, in the case of any prophecy, no matter how close its correspondence with what purports to be its fulfilment, it is always possible, on a priori grounds, to affirm that the fulfilment does not establish the prophecy because we cannot be certain that it was so fulfilled. The correspondence may be fortuitous, but for all that there is a natural inability in the human mind to reject the inference which forces itself on us in consequence of any such correspondence, especially when repeated again and again. An aggregate of threads, each of which may be weak in itself, is yet strong enough to hold the mind enchained; and there can be no doubt that prophecy may not only be rewarded as one of such threads, but also that this particular prophecy is really one of the strongest of them; and though it may be unwise to dwell with too great exclusiveness even on this indication of antecedent design, it is equally unwise to shut our eyes altogether to the cogency of it.

The Book of Daniel, like that of Ezra, is written partly in Hebrew and partly, as already stated, in the Aramaic dialect, commonly called Chaldee. Some have affirmed that the Chaldee of Daniel is a disguised imitation of that of Ezra; but sufficient linguistic differences have been pointed out to negative this assumption. These differences are, indeed, slight, and the Chaldee of Ezra and Daniel is more nearly alike than that of either is to the language of the oldest of the Chaldee Targums. There is reason to believe that neither the Hebrew nor the Chaldee of Daniel was in use in the time of the Maccabees, and hence the notion of a Maccabean origin for the Book of Daniel is rendered the more improbable.

To any one who is at all open to belief, the question of the genuineness of Daniel is decided by the fact that there are two prophecies in the book which no hypothesis of its late origin can at all account for: these are the prophecies of the fifth empire and that of the seventy weeks. If there is any meaning at all in 2 : 44 ; 7 : 27, it can only be the promise of a vast and permanent spiritual kingdom, such as that which claims to have been founded by Christ. It is, humanly speaking, as unlikely that this should have been foreseen in the second century as in the sixth before Christ ; and still more unlikely is it that a person writing in the second century before Christ the kind of imaginary fiction this book would have been, should have framed so lofty a conception as this, and have put it into the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar, and have asserted it so confidently. And the same may be said of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. This is absolutely unintelligible on the supposition of its late origin ; whereas if it is part, as it professes to be, of a Divine vision, it is not only susceptible of a marvellously minute interpretation, but seems to have furnished the only conceivable basis upon which our Lord declared, when He commenced His ministry, that the time was fulfilled ; for in the whole compass of Scripture there is nothing to show that the Messianic hopes and promises were to be fulfilled in the age of Christ—who claimed to have fulfilled them—more than at any other time, and yet we have independent evidence that, at that time, there was a very general impression that they were then to be fulfilled.

It is for these reasons, then, that we regard the Book of Daniel as a genuine work of the age of Daniel, and as coming to us with his authority and sanction. Leathes.

With respect to the genuineness and authenticity of this Book of Daniel there is abundance both of external and of internal evidence. Of external evidence there is all that can well be had or desired in a case of this nature : not only the testimony of the whole Jewish Church and nation, who have constantly received this book as canonical ; but of Josephus particularly, who recommends him as the greatest of the prophets ; of the Jewish Targums and Talmuds, which frequently cite and appeal to his authority ; of Paul and John, who have copied many of his prophecies ; of our Saviour Himself, who citeth his words and styleth him “Daniel the prophet ;” of ancient historians, who relate many of the same transactions ; of the mother of the seven sons and of the father of the Maccabees, who both recommend the example of Daniel to their sons ; of old Eleazar in Egypt, who, praying for the Jews then suffering under the persecution of Ptolemy Philopator (3 Mac. 7 : 6, 7), mentions the deliverance of Daniel out of the den of lions, together with the deliverance of the three men out of the fiery furnace ; of the Jewish high-priest, who showed Daniel’s prophecies to Alexander the Great while he was at Jerusalem ; and still higher, of Ezekiel, a contemporary writer, who greatly extols his piety and wisdom. Nor is the internal less powerful and convincing than the external evidence, for the language, the style, the manner of writing, and all other internal marks and characters are perfectly agreeable to that age ; and he appears plainly and undeniably to have been a prophet by the exact accomplishment of his prophecies, as well those which have already been fulfilled as those which are now fulfilling in the world. Bp. Newton.—To reject the prophecies of Daniel is to reject the Christian religion ; for this religion is founded upon his prophecy concerning the Messiah (Sir Isaac Newton) ; but to read this book with attention and intelligence, and with an unbiased mind to follow the advice of our Saviour when He quoted this very prophecy, “Let him that readeth understand,” might be sufficient to convert an unbeliever from deism to Christianity. Bp. Watson.

The prophecies of Daniel are in a style of which the Old Testament offers no precisely similar example ; but when the choice is proposed between two alternatives : shall this be explained—so far as critical considerations alone are concerned—from the facts of the age and circumstances in which it professes to have been composed, or by the help of a theory which counts the prophecies of the book the work of a “romancer” inspired by ardent patriotism, or feverish zeal, or exuberant imagination ? there can be but little doubt whether facts or theory will be preferred. Facts point to a writer bred in Babylonia, as the author ; theories to a Maccabean. The facts recorded agree with other facts proved to be true, and with that probability which, according to Laplace, has “reference partly to our ignorance, partly to our knowledge,” and is consequently a certain gauge of credibility. It is now simply impossible to condemn offhand as fictions or inventions the historical statements put forward in the Book of Daniel. They can be measured, in the majority of cases, by their agreement or disagreement with the facts, practices, manners, and customs brought to light by cuneiform discovery. The “records of the past” are only partly open to the student; but quite enough is in his hands to enable him to compare still undecided historical allegations with proved historical facts, and by the comparative method of criticism obtain inferences which are, if negative, circumstantial and sound. . . .

In conclusion, the broad truth stands out that “the coloring of the narrative is exactly Babylonian. The details of the manners and customs of the Babylonian court are given with an exactitude, remarkably confirmed by the monuments, which no writer in Palestine of the third or second century B.C. could have possibly attained.” Positive and negative evidences all tend to the same conclusion. The message is often that of “sealed words” (12 : 9), but in the utterance of the message a real man appears. No one can take up this inspired book without finding in it true marks of authenticity. There is historical accuracy and spiritual profit, and not that puerility of fiction or merely intellectual stimulant which would have marked the work had it been a production of the Maccabean period. B. C.

The one fact of importance is that we find a settled canon and arrangement of the sacred Scriptures universally accepted by the Jews long before the time of our Lord; a general consent that Malachi was the last inspired prophet; and numerous traditions, more or less trustworthy, throwing light upon the manner in which the canon was formed. And we receive the Book of Daniel as being one of those Scriptures which the Jews received into their canon. The books of the Old Testament come down to us with a great weight of authority to back them, just as those of the New Testament come with all the authority of the councils of the Church in the fourth century. We do not say that either the Jewish rabbins or the doctors of the Church could not make a mistake; but we do say that this mistake must be clearly proved before we reverse their decision. Too generally, modern criticism has ignored this fact, and men have written as if their fancies and notions were as solid grounds for forming a judgment as the full knowledge possessed by the Jews and by the fathers of the fourth century, who performed for the writings of the apostles that same work of careful discrimination which the men of the great synagogue performed, after the return from exile, for the Hebrew Scriptures. Lay whatever stress you like upon the fact that the admission of a book into the canon of Scripture was the work of men, yet it remains that it was done by men who were competent for the task, and that their judgment has stood the test of ages. R. P. S.

The testimony of the New Testament is, to a Christian, of higher, truer value than any other. The Book of the Revelation proves how powerful an influence the Book of Daniel exercised over the mind of the “beloved disciple.” Paul’s description of the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2 : 4); his delegating the judgment of the world to God’s saints (2 Cor. 6 : 2), have a distinct reference, verbal and doctrinal, to the teaching of this prophetic book. The allusions to the safety of God’s prophet when cast into the den of lions, and to the deliverance of the “three children” (Heb. 11 : 33, 34), can be understood of none others than those whose perils are described in the canonical work. The title, “Son of Man,” which broke from the lips of the dying Stephen, was the same as that claimed by the Holy One, itself reflected to Him from the pages of the prophet.

The Saviour’s discourses upon His second coming contain allusions to the Book of Daniel too distinct to be mistaken. But He does not confine Himself to allusions. In one memorable passage He refutes by anticipation every cavil against Daniel. He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the Holy City at His feet, His disciples around Him. In a few momentous words He foretold the destruction of that temple which rose before Him in all its peerless beauty. As He spake of it He gave them the token which should be the signal of their own dispersion. “When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, . . . then let them which be in Judea flee,” etc. The words have but one plain meaning and one plain reference. As spoken by Christ, they invest with dignity and inspiration the author He is quoting. This can be maintained without for a moment excluding the legitimate use of intelligent and scientific criticism. Christ has said nothing which shall bind us to believe that Daniel reduced the book to its present form, but He has said that which forbids us to believe its author a Maccabean scribe or an Egyptian enthusiast. It was a caution impressed by Theodoret on the Jews of his day who rejected the Book of Daniel: “Remember that in warring against the prophet you are warring through the prophet against the Lord of the prophet.” The caution is neither superfluous nor unnecessary to-day. The Lord of that prophet hath borne testimony to the words of His prophet by the mouth of His holy Son. Christians accept that testimony for the reason given by Thomas Aquinas:

“Credo quicquid dixit Dei Filius,

The opinion advanced by the Holy One of God, and followed by His apostles, is in full accordance with the mind and teaching of the early Jewish and Christian Churches. B. C.

The Lord speaks of Daniel as of a divinely inspired man, who prophesied events which were yet future to Him and His disciples, and, therefore, reach far beyond the time of Antiochus. In Luke 1:19-26 there is the appearance of the angel Gabriel, who occurs nowhere else in Holy Scripture but in Dan. 8:9. The first chapter of Luke confirms the objective truth of Daniel’s angelology against the supposition that it was a product of later conceptions, borrowed from Parsism. Thus our book enjoys the express testimony of the New Testament on those very three points which have been the greatest stumbling-block to modern criticism: the predictions, narratives of miracles, and appearances of angels contained in it. Jesus and His apostles looked on Daniel as a true prophet of God, and on his writings as recounting real and Divine miracles and prophecies, and that in a sense severely attacked by modern criticism, and diametrically opposed to it. Auberlen.

The leading grounds on which modern critics reject the book are the alleged “fabulousness of its narratives,” and “the minuteness of its prophetic history.” “The contents of the book,” it is said, “are irrational and impossible” (Hitzig). Such critics, of course, deny inspiration, reject miracles, and set aside as repugnant to reason everything that is Divine or supernatural in the Scriptures or elsewhere. Generally it may be said that while the book presents in many respects a startling and exceptional character, yet it is far more difficult to explain its composition in the Maccabean period than to connect the peculiarities which it exhibits with the exigencies of the return. Dic. B.

Objections to the authenticity of the book were advanced very early. Porphyry (A.D.

233-302) may be called the father of the objectors. In the twelfth volume of a work against the Christians, now lost, he strove to refute the claims of Daniel to the rank of prophecy. He asserted that the book was not composed by him whose name was attached to it, but by some writer who lived in Judea in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. He urged that it did not speak of things future so much as narrate the events of the past. In fact, that whatever event it recorded up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes was true history, but all beyond that date was false, as the writer must of necessity have been unacquainted with futurity. Therefore, was the conclusion, the book was written in the age of that king. Porphyry’s argument, founded upon a disbelief in prophecy, was natural in a heathen writer, and could logically lead to no other conclusion. Jerome, when reproducing the most forcible of his objections, either appended to each the direct or indirect refutation, or pointed out the way to a sounder mode of interpretation than was possible to a non-Christian mind.

For many years the question slumbered. It was not till the beginning of the present century that Bertholdt (in 1803) gave an extended and critical basis to the more or less timid opposition of the Dutchman Spinoza, the Englishman Hobbes, the Spaniard Acosta, the German Semler, and their pupils at home and abroad. And from Bertholdt’s day to the present the Book of Daniel has been banished from the “authentic” lists of the Old Testament canon proffered by Gesenius, De Wette, Ewald, Hitzig, Bunsen, Bleek, Graf, Schrader, Grätz, and their followers. These critics unite in fixing the date of the composition of the book in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes; and assign it to some scribe who assumed the name Daniel as a nom de plume, that name being the name of one of Ezekiel’s most illustrious contemporaries (chap. 14), and also that of a contemporary of Ezra (8:1, 2) and Nehemiah. Further, the book was not written in Babylon, but in the Holy Land, and probably at Jerusalem. The prophecies and miracles, singly or unitedly, have furnished to them as to Porphyry the primary objections to Daniel. Philological peculiarities, alleged historical inaccuracies, argumenta e silentio, have had more or less weight with some as secondary and complementary objections, but the “too accurate predictions,” and the “irrational and impossible” character of the miracles, have been the main difficulties felt in perusing the book. B. C.

The denial proceeds on the assumption that prediction is impossible, and that, therefore, the visions of Daniel must have been written after the events had taken place, and by an unknown writer, who fictitiously attributed them to Daniel in order to give them currency; in other words, the book is a literary forgery. But this brings the composition down to 170 B.C., and assumes that the custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures were easily duped by the anonymous and apocryphal document, for only forty years after this we find the book in the completed Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament begun 285 B.C. Place it only ten years earlier, and the predictive element remains. It has been a fierce, critical battle that has been waged over the Book of Daniel, but the victory remains with those who maintain its historical character, and who contend that it was written either by Daniel himself or by some one who acted as Daniel’s literary editor. The predictions are credible for him who believes God to be omniscient and revelation to be possible. The miracles, too, are rational as impressive manifestations of the power and purpose of God to deliver His faithful servants in an age when idolatry and monotheism were locked in the grapple of life and death. Behrends.

The spuriousness of Daniel has, for its sole support, only the theological doubts of the possibility of prophecy in general, and of a prophecy so minute in particular. The historical and philological arguments against its genuineness have been sufficiently refuted by Hengstenberg and Hävernick. Ebrard.—Within the last thirty years (1861) Hengstenberg, Sack, Oehler, Hävernick, Reichel, Schulze, Herbst, Vaihinger, Delitzsen, Auberlen, Zundel, Kurtz, Keil, Hoffman, Drechsel, and Baumgarten have stood forward as vindicators of the genuineness of Daniel’s prophecies, while Niebuhr has defended the accuracy of his chronological statements. McCaul.

Points in Evidence of Genuineness.

1. That the Daniel of the age of the Captivity was a very prominent man in Jewish history. Even King David was scarcely more so. He was known to all intelligent Jews of that age and onward into later times. Far above all other Jews of his time, he was the distinguished man—prime-minister in the courts successively of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and promoted to the very highest rank by Belshazzar just on the eve of his final fall. Obviously not the doings only of such a man, but his writings, must be matters of public notoriety. By how much the more prominent the man, and by how much the more highly esteemed among his countrymen, by so much the greater would be the difficulty of putting forth forgeries in his name successfully during his lifetime, or at any period while his name would be worth using in a forged production; and hence by so much the greater would be the certainty that written documents purporting to be from him would be genuine.

2. This Book of Daniel, in both its historic and prophetic parts, is closely interwoven with his actual life. It is not easy to conceive how any book could be more so. Both the outer and the inner life of the man stand out in his writings with remarkable distinctness. There is not a word in the whole book that does not fit naturally and closely to the life, to the heart, and to the whole character of this prominent man, Daniel of the Captivity. Hence the assumption that this book is a forgery, gotten up three hundred and seventy years after the latest record of his life, is violently improbable—not to say utterly incredible.

3. The languages in which the book is written determine its age, proving that it must have been written during, or very near, the Captivity, and completely disproving the fiction of Porphyry. The facts are that the portion (chaps. 2: 4-7; 28) is in Chaldee; all the rest in Hebrew. Now the period of the Captivity is the only one during the whole range of Jewish history in which one of the Jewish sacred books could have been written thus, a part in each tongue. For all Scripture was written for the common people and primarily for the people then living. This was the only period in the entire national history of the Jews in which they understood both these languages. Again, this was the only period in which the Chaldee portion could have been reasonably written, for the benefit of the Chaldean people. Let any man intelligent in history think of the Chaldee portion of Daniel as written for the Chaldean people in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes! The idea is simply absurd. Babylon had then almost ceased to be. Its relations to Nebuchadnezzar were all forgotten by its population. In the Book of Ezra, chap. 5 throughout, portions of chaps. 4, 6 and 7 are in Chaldee, and a verse or two in Jeremiah; but these prophets were substantially in the same age with Daniel.

4. Some of the salient points in the history found in this book are referred to in subsequent Jewish history prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in a way which renders it nearly certain that the book itself was then extant. In 1 Mac. 2 : 51-60 the venerable Mattathias of Moden, himself then near death, exhorts his sons to “call to remembrance what acts their fathers did in their time ;” alludes successively to Abraham, Joseph, Phineas, Joshua, Caleb, David and Elijah ; and then adds : “Ananias, Azarias and Misael, by believing, were saved out of the flame. Daniel, for his innocency, was saved from the mouth of lions.” These words were spoken by Mattathias before the date fixed by these German critics for the writing of the Book of Daniel. I maintain that there is the strongest presumption for the existence of this book long before the death of Epiphanes, even as there is of the other histories drawn from in this same speech.

5. Josephus is a valuable Jewish witness. A man of eminent learning, in very high repute among his countrymen, the author of a full and very elaborate history of the Jewish nation from Abraham down to the destruction of their city by the Romans (A.D. 70) ; born A.D. 37 and publishing his works in the latter part of the first century ; his testimony to the current opinions of his nation cannot be impeached. He speaks (Ant. XII. 7 : 6) of the prophecies of Daniel as being “uttered four hundred and eight years before”—i.e., before the events in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. He also says (Ant. X. 11 : 7), “All these things, he (Daniel) left in writing, God exhibiting them to him, so that those who read, observant of the events, must needs look on Daniel with wonder on account of the honor done to him by God.” The fiction of these modern German critics is squarely confronted by this testimony of Josephus.

6. There can be scarcely a doubt that the Book of Daniel was translated into the Septuagint one hundred years before the German sceptics admit it to have existed. Some points in respect to the authors of this celebrated version and to its production remain considerably obscure ; but there is no ground for doubt that it was made within the reigns of the first two Ptolemies in the Greek-Egyptian dynasty, and at the request and with the aid of these two kings. Their reigns fill the period B.C. 323-246. The Pentateuch was brought out first, and about B.C. 285. It might be difficult to show when the whole work was completed, or when the translation of Daniel was made. But the whole was manifestly carried through in the same general movement, for the same common purposes and objects, and hence, in all probability, without unnecessary delay. The Book of

Daniel was in that version. It must, therefore, with the highest probability have been translated before B.C. 163. It is not conceivable that one hundred and twenty years could have been occupied in completing this work.

7. The Book of Daniel was brought into the accepted canon of the Old Testament Scriptures not later than the close of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 474-424)—i.e., not far from three hundred years before the death of Epiphanes. Here Josephus is a competent witness. He says : “We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arrayed against each other, but only twenty-two books, which are justly accredited as Divine.” Hence the canon of books accepted as inspired comes down through the reign of Artaxerxes, but no further. The twenty-two books of our accepted Old Testament, Daniel included, were all written, according to Josephus, before that reign closed—i.e., say at least before B.C. 400.

8. It is remarkable that the time assigned by these German critics for the writing of this Book of Daniel was one in which the leading Jews knew they had no prophet among them—knew they had not had one for many years past—and could not expect one for many years to come. That is, the existing state of opinion was thoroughly adverse both to the writing and to the reception of such a forgery as they claim this book to be.

The arguments thus far adduced against the great central position of the critics in question have designedly been of that historical and critical sort which those who impugn Daniel usually delight to honor. It seemed well, first of all, to meet them on their own ground. It remains to adduce yet one argument which those who recognize the Divine mission of Jesus Christ as the great Teacher sent from God, will surely honor. Our Divine Lord Himself refers (Matt. 24 : 15, 16) to Daniel and to this book of his, in these words : “When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand). Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.” But it will be asked, What do these sceptical critics say in support of their positions ? To support their main, central position, they begin with denying the fact of any inspired prophecy either here or elsewhere, and resolving all predictions of future events into human sagacity or unfounded anticipations. But inasmuch as this Book of Daniel records as prophecy a long series of very minute historic events far in the future (e.g., in chaps. 11 and 8), as well as the general succession of great dynasties—too much to be attributed to human sagacity—they insist that the book must have been written after these events took place. This they maintain is the common law of historical criticism. If an ancient book of history should come to light, all critics would settle the question of its date on the assumption that it was written later than the events it records. I reply, this is very true of what is merely human history; not at all true of divinely inspired prophecy. The fact of a really Divine inspiration constitutes a bold exception. The plausibility of this modern plea against Daniel lies in its tacitly ignoring this distinction.

All the other points made in the attack upon Daniel are trivial; that the book contains some Greek words and some Persian; that part of it is written in Chaldee and part in Hebrew; that the tone of the composition is peculiar—unlike that of the other prophets; that its miracles are grotesque, and its ideas respecting angels, the Messiah, and an ascetic life indicate unmistakably a late age; and finally that Daniel speaks too well of himself, and was too young to stand so high as he appears in Ezekiel.

The candid and intelligent reader will readily see that these points are trivial. For there are not more Greek or Persian words here than ought to be expected in an author living and writing in the great commercial and political centre of the known world. For this known world at that time practically embraced both Greece and Persia. There were the best of reasons for writing some portions in Chaldee—viz., the special benefit of the Chaldean people. If the book had been written wholly in Hebrew, a much stronger objection could be raised against it, as scarcely credible in view of the author’s relations to the Chaldean people, government, and language. On the other hand, there were some good reasons for writing some of it in Hebrew. Further, the cast of the book is unobjectionable. True, it is part history and part prophecy; but it is all the more useful for this; was all needed at the time, and needed from this author. True, he uses symbols; but so did Ezekiel and Zechariah—prophets nearest his age and of most similar surroundings: and (what is not less worthy of note) his symbols are remarkably Chaldean, as recent discoveries most abundantly attest. Yet further, its miracles, so far from being “grotesque,” are morally grand and solemnly impressive. Note how the salvation of those three men in the furnace and of Daniel in the den of lions affected in each case the king on his throne.

Evidently, if this book is not reliably accurate as history, there is a somewhat strong presumption in favor of its being written at a later date. If it be a forgery of later date, written by some unknown hand and after the fulfilment of its apparent prophecies, its religious value to us becomes nothing, and painful doubts are thrown upon the reliability of other canonical Scriptures. But if this book is historically true, then it was no doubt written by the Daniel of the Captivity. If written by him, it contains most wonderful prophecy and becomes its own witness to its Divine inspiration. Thus the general truth of its history confirms its genuineness and authenticity, rescues it from the ruthless hands of mistaken critics, and gives it back to the church and to mankind, its proofs brightened and its reliability confirmed by the ordeal of this fiery furnace of hypercriticism. When this book of Daniel becomes fully and justly known it will appear that in respect to both its history and its prophecy it interlaces itself so perfectly, not only with the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New, but with all contemporary and subsequent history at least down to the Christian era, that no violence can wrench it away. Its position is such among the pillars of the great temple of truth that none can pluck it down without laying the temple itself in ruins. If there be any reliable history of the ages, then is this book reliable. Its prophecies have mostly become history; itself came forth from the Spirit of God. H. C.

It cannot even be imagined at what period, according to this theory, the author wrote the book. If he wrote before the death of Antiochus, how is it that he was so intimately acquainted with all the circumstances preceding that event that he predicted it to the very day? If he wrote after his death, how could he possibly connect with this event his Messianic dreams? But in either case the book, with its Messianic prophecies, would have been rejected soon after its appearance, on account of the evident falseness of its predictions. How, then, can it be accounted for that it attained canonical dignity?

Further, the modern theory is incompatible, in the most essential points, with the text itself; it is not capable of entering into the manifold riches and depth, especially of the first part of the sacred prophecy. The fulness of Scripture cannot be bounded and circumscribed by so narrow and meagre a scheme. And this will appear yet more evident when we consider the individual features of the monarchies. If the modern view of our book and its object is not capable of accounting for the full and lengthy mention made of the world-kingdoms in general, it is still less able to account for the manner in which the individual kingdoms are treated. The theorists cannot explain why the first and second parts are at all different; why the supposed writer, from his Maccabean standpoint, looks back to different epochs—in the second and seventh chapters to the Babylonian kingdom, in the eighth only as far as the Medo-Persian, in the seventh no further than the Persian. They cannot explain why, in the first-mentioned two chapters, there are four, in both the others but two monarchies enumerated; and in connection with this they cannot give a satisfactory reason why the eighth chapter speaks of the Medo-Persian kingdoms as one; while, in the second and seventh chapters, according to their view, it is analyzed into two. Taking the book as genuine, and as what it asserts itself to be, we have a simple and natural answer to all these questions, in the different times in which the revelations were vouchsafed, and in the different objects of the first and second parts. The revelation of the eighth chapter took place in the third year of Belshazzar, a time in which the Babylonian empire was decaying so rapidly, that it neither required nor deserved a more minute consideration. The revelations of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth chapters were given to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus, and thus neither the Babylonians nor even the Medians needed to be mentioned; consequently the kingdoms here spoken of are Persia and Greece (10: 13, 20; 11: 2).

Even if we admit that the author might go back to ancient kingdoms, in order to attain to a certain fulness and completeness in his enumeration of previous world kingdoms, we must find it strange, as is hinted by Ewald, that he did not mention also the Assyrian, perhaps even the Egyptian kingdom. A man living in the days of the Maccabees, looking back on the previous sufferings which Israel had to bear from the world power, had no particular reason for choosing to begin with the Babylonian kingdom first, as little reason as to leave it out in the later chapters. But who can avoid seeing, in this very circumstance, that the Babylonian kingdom is mentioned as the first—a new and important proof that the date of our book is that of the Babylonian exile, and that on the supposition of the genuineness of Daniel, a multitude of phenomena actually lying before us, and which must remain unaccounted for and unintelligible to modern criticism, are seen to have a rational basis. We have seen in our first chapter that the reason why Daniel begins with the Babylonian kingdom was not merely his external, personal, and historical position, but an inner reason, related to the whole development of the history of revelation. For it was from the beginning of the Babylonian exile that the existence of an independent theocracy on earth ceased, and is not restored even to this hour; the empire of the world powers still endures.

According to the view adopted by modern criticism, the Book of Daniel furnishes us merely with a fragment of political history from Nebuchadnezzar to Antiochus Epiphanes; according to our view—that is, according to what the book says of itself—it intends to represent something infinitely deeper and more sublime—viz., the relation of the two fundamental powers of universal history, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, from the time when the kingdom of God ceases to exist as a separate state till the time when it shall be re-established as such in glory. And thus our book becomes truly a prophetic, and hence a canonical book, since it places all detail and individual history in the light of the whole development of the Divine plan of salvation, and the government of the world, and reaches even unto the end of time. Auberlen.

Use of Hebrew and Chaldee.

The alternate use of Hebrew and Chaldee is the main linguistic peculiarity of the Book of Daniel, and is indicative of a date when he who wrote it was familiar with both. It certainly has the effect of externally placing the book among the writings of the Captivity; Jeremiah and Ezra being the only two canonical works connected with that period which exhibit a similar union.

The Hebrew and Chaldee present respectively undoubted peculiarities, at the same time that they suggest as their author such a man as the Daniel of Scripture is described to be. The circumstances of his life and education are more than sufficient to account for his style and diction. The Hebrew is the Hebrew of the Captivity.

The “Chaldee” of the Bible (Dan. 2: 4 to chap. 7, end; Ezra 4: 8 to 6: 18; 7: 12-26; Jer. 10: 11; Gen. 31: 47 has two words) contains the oldest existing remains of the oldest Aramaic speech. Aramaic has two dialects, west and east Aramaic, and the latter is the name given to the language which became current among the Jews during and after the Captivity. B. C.

It is at chap. 2 : 4 that the Chaldee is first used, wrongly called in our version Syriac, but in the original Aramaic, the common dialect of all the descendants of Aram (Gen. 10 : 23). Really Syriac and Chaldee are simply dialects of Aramaic, but the former is best known to us as a Christian tongue famous for the translations made into it of the Scriptures, and for the works of the great writers of the schools of Edessa and Nisibis, beginning with Ephrem Syrus in the fourth century, and ending with Gregory Bar-Hebræus in the thirteenth ; while Chaldee had a literature partly heathen and partly Jewish, having maintained in Palestine the ascendancy which it obtained over the Jews while living at Babylon.

The exact comparison of the Chaldee of Daniel with that of Ezra has clearly proved that they are of the same age, while, nevertheless, there are sufficient points of difference to show that the one is not an imitation of the other. In both the influence of pure Hebrew is strongly marked ; while in the Targums, which were not actually committed to writing till about the time of the Christian era, though most of the matter was more ancient, having been handed down by oral tradition in the schools of the scribes, the differences from the language and style of Daniel and Ezra are very large, and there is a complete absence of all Hebraisms. A careful examination, moreover, of the Hebrew of Daniel justifies Keil in the assertion, as “an incontrovertible fact, that it bears the closest affinity to the language of the writings in the exile, especially Ezekiel’s.” It was only during the time of the exile that there was any occasion for using both languages, or the probability that a writer would be equally skilled in their use. R. P. S.

The language of the book, no less than its general form, belongs to an era of transition. Like Ezra, Daniel is composed partly in the vernacular Aramaic (Chaldee) and partly in the sacred Hebrew. The introduction (chaps. 1 to 2 : 4 a) is written in Hebrew. On the occasion of the Syriac (i.e., Aramaic) answer of the Chaldeans, the language changes to Aramaic, and this is retained till the close of the seventh chapter (chaps. 2 : 4 b to 7). The personal introduction of Daniel as the writer of the text (8 : 1) is marked by the resumption of the Hebrew, which continues to the close of the book (chaps. 8 to 12). The character of the Hebrew bears the closest affinity to that of Ezekiel and Habakkuk. The Aramaic, like that of Ezra, is also of an earlier form than exists in any other Chaldaic document. The use of Greek technical terms marks a period when commerce had already united Persia and Greece ; and the occurrence of peculiar words which admit of an explanation by reference to Aryan and not to Shemitic roots is almost inexplicable on the supposition that the prophecies are a Palestinian forgery of the Maccabean age. Dic. B.

The History Illustrated by the Tablets.

The writer of great part of the book, if not even of the whole, becomes the very first person in the kingdom next to the king, and lives and prospers under four monarchs, called respectively, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Cyrus, and Darius. We have thus a considerable body of Babylonian history in this book ; and numerous points present themselves on which some illustration of the history from profane sources is possible. Take the character of Nebuchadnezzar’s court. It is vast and complicated, elaborate in its organization, careful in its etiquette, magnificent in its ceremonial. Among the most important personages in it are a class who profess to have the power of expounding dreams, and generally foretelling future events by means of magic, sorcery, and astrology (chap. 2 : 2, 10, 27, etc.). Next to these are the civil administrators, “princes, governors, captains, judges, treasurers, councillors, sheriffs, and rulers of provinces” (chap. 3 : 2), who are specially summoned to attend in full numbers on certain grand occasions. The king is waited on by eunuchs, sometimes of royal descent, who are subjected to a three years’ careful training, and are under the superintendence of a “master of the eunuchs,” who is an officer of high position (chap. 1 : 3-5). The monarch has, of course, a “body-guard,” which is under the command of a “captain” (chap. 2 : 14), another high official. Music is used at the court in ceremonials, and is apparently of an advanced kind, the bands comprising performers on at least six different musical instruments (chap. 3 : 5, 7, 10, etc.). The Babylonian and Assyrian remains amply illustrate most of these particulars. Magic holds a most important place in both nations, and the monarchs set a special value on it. Their libraries contained hundreds of tablets, copied with the utmost care, on which were recorded the exorcisms, the charms, the talismans and the astronomical prognostics, which had come down from a remote antiquity, and which were implicitly believed in. The celestial phenomena were constantly observed, and reports sent to the court from the observatories, which formed the groundwork of confident predictions. Eclipses were especially noted, and, according to the month and day of their occurrence, were regarded as portending events, political, social, or meteorological.

The position of the king in the Babylonian court as absolute lord and master of the lives and liberties even of the greatest of his subjects, able to condemn to death, not only individuals (chap. 3 : 19), but a whole class, and that class the highest in the State (chap. 2 : 12-14), is thoroughly in accordance with all that profane history tells us of the Babylonian governmental system. In Oriental monarchies it was not always so. The writer of the Book of Daniel shows a just appreciation of the difference between the Babylonian and the Medo-Persian systems, when he makes Darius the Mede influenced by his nobles, and compelled to do things against his will by a “law of the Medes and Persians, which altered not” (chap. 6 : 14-17); while Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian is wholly untrammelled, and does not seem even to consult his lords on matters where the highest interests of the State are concerned. Babylonian and Assyrian monarchs were absolute in the fullest sense of the word. No traditional “law” restrained them. Their nobility was an official nobility, like that of Turkey at the present day. They themselves raised it to power; and it lay with them to degrade its members at their pleasure. Officers such as the tartan, or “commander-in-chief,” the rabshakeh, or “chief cup-bearer,” and the rabsaris, or “chief eunuch,” held the highest positions (2 K. 18 : 17)—mere creatures of the king, whom a “breath had made,” and a breath could as easily “unmake.” The kings, moreover, claimed to be of Divine origin, and received Divine honors. G. R.

Other Points Touching the Scope and Usefulness of the Book.

The Book of Daniel comprises the whole time of the servitude and dispersion of the holy people. Hence the importance of this book, and its great use for our times. But this period is described not only by Daniel, but also by Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi; also, the evangelists and apostles lived during this period, and both as prophets and teachers they speak of its peculiarities. There is, moreover, no book in the Old Testament in which mention is not made of this period, for all the prophecies of Christ’s incarnation, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension, as also the prophecies relating to the dispersion of Israel, refer to this time. But Daniel has this advantage, that he lived at the beginning of this period, and that he described it to its end. Roos.

In the Book of Daniel the vast drama of Gentile history is claimed for God, and the grand stream of the world’s onward progress is set before us as possessing an intrinsic value, and therefore as the fitting object of God’s providence. And Daniel held just the position which made him the right person thus to vindicate for God the whole course of human events. A Jew by birth, intensely patriotic, devoted to the observance of the Jewish law, constant in his prayers for his people, he was also the president of a learned heathen caste and the vizier of a Gentile king. The conduct of the affairs of a mighty empire must have daily brought him into business relations with other men, and the narrow prejudices which grow up in isolation must have melted before the warmer feelings and larger interests which arise out of a more extensive knowledge of human affairs and a closer contact with men. To Daniel the Jewish Church and nation were of all things those which he most prized, but he knew the worth also and importance of God’s empire over the heathen world. R. P. S.

As it had been the habit of the prophets to connect in their visions the glories of the latter days with the blessings of the immediate future, they placed no interval between their picture of the return from captivity and the description of the times of the Messiah. The people, giving a chronological interpretation to this connection, imagined that the restoration of Jerusalem would immediately precede the coming of the Christ. But a larger horizon spread before the eyes of Daniel; and the aim of his ministry was to inspire into Israel a new virtue—that of calmness in expectation, of faith taking the form of perseverance.

Under Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel had had a vision of the unfolding of history up to the coming of the Messiah, under many grand phases—stages in the journey of humanity in search of its lost unity. In the colossal image, “whose head was of gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, and his feet part of iron and part of clay,” he had recognized four forms of terrestrial power, hostile to God, which were to succeed each other before the coming of Christ. Then, in the little stone, cut out from the mountain without hands, which had smitten and overturned the image and taken its place, becoming a great mountain which filled the whole earth, he had discerned without difficulty the kingdom of the Messiah, feeble at its beginning, but growing through the Divine power, and taking the place of all other powers. And who could fail to see the wonderful correspondence between this prophetic picture and the general course of history? At the very moment when the last and mightiest of the heathen monarchies was swallowing up the remains of all the preceding ones, and gathering together under one rule all the nations of the world, a Child of obscure parentage was born in Bethlehem and grew up at Nazareth. It was the power of the Spirit which was then making its appearance and becoming incarnate in a Man, soon to come into collision with the brutality of earthly power. The shock took place, and we know its effects. The image has crumbled to pieces; the little stone is uninjured and still growing. The trial, it is true, is not yet over; but the results of experience are before us, to enable us to foresee the realization of the end described in the prophetic vision.

Thus, then, four great empires are to succeed each other from the time of Daniel to that of the Messiah on the stage of the world. Daniel contemplates them over again in the vision related in chap. 7 under the image of the four living creatures which he beholds emerging in succession from the waters of the sea—that is, from the midst of heathendom—and which vanish to make room for the one only eternal kingdom—that of which the figure of the Son of man is the emblem. Godet.

We have in the Book of Daniel a necessary link between the Old and New Testament, and its development of doctrine as regards the abolition of the Jewish dispensation, the universality of Christ’s kingdom, the resurrection of the dead and the general judgment, is as indispensable for the unity of Holy Scripture as Isaiah’s development of doctrine with regard to the efficacy of Christ’s atonement. It remains only to add that no single trace of Maccabean feeling can be found in it. The time of the Maccabees was intensely Jewish in its sympathies; the Book of Daniel is cosmopolitan. The Maccabees, wronged and persecuted by Antiochus Epiphanes, hated the Gentiles with hearty abomination; the Book of Daniel regards them with large-hearted affection. In the Maccabean age the people mourned over the absence of the prophetic spirit and the withdrawal of all external signs of God’s presence; the Book of Daniel belongs to a time when prophecy and miracle are still things of the present, vouchsafed upon all worthy occasions. And when we take into consideration the historical accuracy of the book, its thorough acquaintance with the minuter details of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires, its perfect mastery both of the Hebrew and the Chaldee languages, and the deep interest it displays in the fortunes of heathen empires, we may feel quite certain that such a work was no product of Maccabean times. There was neither knowledge enough then, nor largeness of heart enough for such a work. R. Pye Smith.

Daniel and the Revelation. The Book of Daniel bears the same relation to the Old Testament, and especially to the Prophets, as the Revelation of John to the New, and especially to the prophetic sayings of Christ and His apostles. Daniel is the Apocalypse of the Old Testament. Other books of the Old Testament as well speak of the great Messianic future; other books of the New Testament as well speak of the second coming, or Parousia of Christ. But, while the other prophets bring only the particular situation of the people of God at the time into the light of prophecy, and while the apostles give disclosures on special eschatological points, as the wants and necessities of their readers demand them; Daniel and the Revelation of John are not so much called forth by a temporary want, and given for a special end, but they have the more general aim of serving as prophetic lamps to the congregation of God in those times, in which there is no revelation, and in which the Church is given into the hands of the Gentiles (Luke 21: 24). We thus recognize Daniel as the light which was sent for the comfort of those who were “wise,” to lighten the darkness of the half millennium, from the Captivity till Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. And, in like manner, the Apocalypse of John was given to the saints of the new covenant, as a guiding star, to lead them on their pilgrim’s journey through the world, from the first coming of Christ, or rather from the destruction of Jerusalem till His second coming, when He shall establish the kingdom of glory. (Cf. Tit. 2: 11-13; Rev. 1: 7; 22: 17, 20.) The last days indeed form also the subject of Daniel’s visions (chaps. 2 and 7), and therefore we must necessarily expect an intimate connection between these chapters and the Apocalypse. But, while Daniel writes for Jews, and from the Old Testament standpoint, John, standing on New Testament ground, writes for Gentile Christians, a difference rich in consequences.

Such being the object for which the apocalyptic books were given, it will easily be seen why there is, strictly speaking, only one Apocalypse in each Testament, though there are many prophets in the Old, and many prophetical disclosures in the New. There are two great periods of revelation, that of the Old and that of the New Testament. And each of these is followed by a period without revelation; that which succeeded the Exile, and that which succeeded the apostles (the Church historical period). The apocalyptic books are the two lights which shine out of the former periods into the latter. And hence each Apocalypse is among the latest works of its respective canon; it is written at a time when revelation, about to lapse into silence, gathers once more its whole strength into a final effort. We are taught this by the very name apocalyptic. It is an apocalypse (Rev. I: 1), a revelation in a peculiar emphatic sense, needed for the times without revelation; a guiding star in the times of the Gentiles. Auberlen.

During the last hundred years there have been numerous efforts to find European history anticipated in Daniel—to trace out in his prophecies the latest moves on the chessboard of European politics—the career of Napoleon the Great or of Napoleon the less; of the Turk or Pacha; or of the Emperor of all the Russias. No author was ever stretched or cut to a procrustean bed with more recklessness than this same sensible and excellent Daniel. The sad record of his experiences at the hands of expositors of prophecy should admonish us to approach his writings with a docile spirit, to ask him what he meant to say, and not to bring to him a set of ideas and then torture him and his words till they can be made to indorse them. H. C.

Two Classes of Prophecy: 1. Chapters II. and VII. 2. Chapters VIII.-XI. Difference in their Scope.

The visions of the first seven chapters, notably those of the second and seventh chapters, take in the entire course of human history to the end of time. The visions recorded in the eighth and following chapters are narrower in scope, and have a definite boundary in time. They deal with the fortunes of the Jew under the Greek and Syrian dominion, and close with the advent and the death of the Messiah. This cleavage in the prophetic subject-matter is indicated in the change of language. From the eighth chapter on to the close the book is written in Hebrew—the sacred speech of the Jew; but from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter the language is the Eastern Aramaic or Chaldee, the language which the exiled Jews used on the street and in the market, and which Nebuchadnezzar spoke and understood. Or, to phrase it differently, the first part of Daniel is written in the speech of the world, because the world is the subject of vision and interpretation; the second part of Daniel is written in the language of the Church, because vision and interpretation deal with the fortunes of Israel, whose mission ends with the advent of Christ.

This distinction between the two classes of prophecy in Daniel is of importance to a proper understanding of them. Some interpreters, beginning with the earlier visions—Nebuchadnezzar’s great image and Daniel’s four beasts—and noting their world-wide scope, have tried to discover a similar scope in the eleventh and twelfth chapters, to their own and their readers’ bewilderment. Others, beginning with these last chapters, and pointing out clearly that they deal with the Syrian rule over Palestine, and go down no farther than the advent and death of the Messiah, have carried this over to the earlier visions, insisting that the two classes are practically repetitions. The way out of this tangle is to treat the two classes separately, the very difference in the language hinting as much. If this fact had been clearly noted, no one would ever have identified the “little horn” of the seventh chapter with the “little horn” of the eighth chapter. In the seventh chapter the “little horn” makes its appearance among the horns of the fourth and the last beast, which can only be the Roman empire; while the “little horn” of the eighth chapter is a horn which grew up among the four horns which took the place of the “notable horn” on the head of the he-goat, by whom the two-horned ram was destroyed. There are four beasts in the seventh chapter; there are only two beasts in the eighth; and the interpretation which follows leaves no doubt that the two-horned ram is the Medio-Persian empire, while the he-goat with the notable horn is the Macedonian-Greek rule, which, under Alexander the Great, trampled out the life of the Persian authority. Upon his death, the new kingdom was divided into four parts; and among the Syrian rulers was one whom the Jews remembered with special detestation, as the desecrator of their sanctuary—Antiochus Epiphanes. He is the “little horn” of the eighth chapter. So plain is all this, that the rationalistic critics, who deny all predictive prophecy, insist that the latter half of Daniel must be a pseudograph, written in his name, but not by him, and invented only when the events had already taken place.

But the “little horn” of the seventh chapter is not associated with the Greek empire. These are four beasts—a lion with eagle’s wings; a bear, heavy and voracious; a leopard, swift, with four wings and four heads; and a fourth beast, great and terrible, with iron teeth and hoofs, and with ten horns, among which a “little horn” appears. The traditional interpretation is still the best. The lion with eagle’s wings is the Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar. The bear, heavy and voracious, is the Medo Persian empire of Cyrus. The leopard, swift, with four wings and four heads, is the empire of Alexander, broken at his death into four parts. So far as there is any parallelism, the leopard of the seventh chapter is the he-goat of the eighth. But the vision of the seventh chapter goes beyond the Greek empire. The fourth beast, with iron teeth and hoofs, is the Roman empire. It is broken into ten parts, and then the “little horn” appears, which is described as diverse from the other horns—with human eyes, and a mouth speaking blasphemies, making war upon the saints, claiming to be God, and attempting to introduce a universal religious revolution. We know that the Roman empire was broken into numerous parts, there being even now ten great powers which occupy the old Roman ground—England, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Austria, Italy, Spain and France. Among these ten powers we must look for the “little horn,” which subdues three of them, which is not in the line of natural succession, but which grows up by the side of the remaining seven, and is noted for its blasphemy. We should expect to find it already existing, even though it have not already attained its full power, and were still awaiting its deserved doom.

The choice, it seems to me, lies between two interpretations. There are those who think that the “little horn” represents the rise of modern anarchy, which is of European birth, and which permeates most widely the three nations of Russia, Germany and France. The discontent is deep and bitter. And the anarchy which in these lands makes war upon the State also makes war upon industry, upon the family and upon the Church. It is not only atheistic, it is diabolical and immoral. It would change times and seasons. It insists that the whole modern order must go, that all existing institutions are tyrannical, and that Christianity is the most oppressive of them all. These things are boldly preached and widely circulated in print. Insane as these vaporings may be, they must be made account of; and there can be no question that on both sides of the Atlantic the problem is up whether we can preserve our Christian civilization—not this part of it or that, but the whole edifice from foundation to roof. The resemblance between all this and the “little horn” of our chapter is certainly striking and startling; and I do not wonder that many regard it as almost a demonstration. Of course, upon this theory the “little horn” is only growing at present; its advent to power and its judgment are yet to come.

There is, however, another view which in some respects is even more striking. This makes the papacy the “little horn.” I say the papacy, not the Roman Catholic Church; for the Roman Catholic Church existed centuries before there was any papacy. The papacy is an excrescence, and the destruction of the papacy would not be the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church can be reformed; the papacy cannot be. The end of the Pope’s temporal power did not weaken the Catholic Church; the end of the Pope’s spiritual power would not destroy the Church. The Roman Catholic Church existed during the period of the Roman empire; but the papacy belongs to the period of political disintegration, when Europe was beginning to crystallize into its modern States. Among the ten horns this “little horn” appeared, and different from them all, with different aims and different methods. It has plucked up three horns by the roots—Italy, Austria and Spain—subjugating them completely, while the other States have defied its authority. Has it not spoken blasphemous things? Does it not presume to sit upon the throne of God? Has it not changed times and seasons, substituting its own enactments for the simple religion of the New Testament? Is not its path lighted with martyr fires? Are not its hands red with blood? Nothing can wipe out the stains of the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day and of the butcheries of the Duke of Alva, hailed with acclamations in the Vatican. It is the papacy which is responsible for all this—that system of ecclesiastical usurpation which chained the Bible, which repressed free thought, which smote with its iron rod all who challenged its claims. Whereunto shall it grow? Some think the grapple is yet to come. Others think that Luther’s hammer struck the “little horn,” and that we are only witnessing

its dying agonies. The temporal power is gone. The spiritual power is waning. The people are thinking for themselves. I greatly mistake the temper of the whole wide world if the days of the papacy are not numbered. That will be the redemption of the old Roman Catholic Church, which is still the home of many devout and earnest souls.